You can use the terms "and" & "or" in your search; "or" phrases are resolved
first, then the "and" phrases. For example, searching for "black hole and
galaxy or universe" will find articles that have the phrase "black hole" in them
and also have either "galaxy" or "universe" in them. Please note that other
search syntax like quote marks, hyphens, etc. are not currently supported.

When you view web pages with matches to your search, the terms you searched for will be highlighted in yellow.

If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Humanity should steer the future by making it practical for anyone and everyone to play, tinker and dream with science. The ability to play, dream and tinker with a number of sciences put the power of digital information technology (IT) in a large number of inspired hands and committed minds who could not help but deliver the bewildering changes that define our digital present – a present characterized by the flood of digital innovations that earlier generation would have surely labeled as miraculous. While IT is the clear leader and has sprinted ahead on the shoulders of a few of the vast number of available sciences, it is now imperative to put the power of every other science also in the hands and minds of the global public so that the motivated and inspired can play, dream and tinker also with these sciences to unleash similar high volumes of ingenuity that can lead to exponential progress on humanity’s most vexing and intransigent problems, ranging from water security and energy sufficiency to protection from earthquakes and hurricanes. Access to this ability to play, dream and tinker with science must be global and unrestricted as intransigent challenges know no boundaries and do not come in only one version e.g. drinking water shortages have a markedly different profile in different locations and water shortage is only global in the sense that it occurs in many places around the globe. Simply speaking, the global differences are so many and exist in so many varied combinations that a custom remedy is the right answer for virtually every instance of the same-sounding intransigent challenge. As science is the only true constant because natures rules don’t change, making every science globally accessible in usable form is the prudent and only way to steer the future.

Author Bio

Ajay Bhatla is an amateur part-time scientist who sees in science the keys to better lives of the 3 billion at the bottom of the global economic pyramid. His interest in science, seeded in high school, has been well fed during a career as technologist, engineer, entrepreneur, consultant and executive for policy think-tanks, research & development efforts and multinational endeavors in pursuit of equality, opportunity, profit and service. Ajay is writing a book titled “Global Public Playing with Science”

Eco-systems are routinely destroyed by people attempting to help the starving, without regard to population control and the pressures it puts on local eco-systems. Letting humanity "play" is ultimate destructive sustainability.

Humans have, indeed, changed the way the world works. "Almost 90% of world plant activity, is to be found in eco-systems where humans play a significant role" per the Economist May 26, 2011. Thus, it is correct to say that local eco-systems have been impacted the world over.

Population and not controlling it, however, are not necessarily the only reason.

The reasons are as unique and varied as there are local eco-systems in the world. That's why, in my judgement, no single global solution is practical. And, so I recommend that each person or community come up with its own custom solution using science.

Donald C Barker wrote on Apr. 23, 2014 @ 02:45 GMT

Hi Ajay,

Interesting, but I think we need to make sure we realize that Science is a process, not a discrete object or something you can put in a breadbox. And often it is a process which takes a lot of time (and $). What we need to do is get people, young people, energized about the process by showing them how really interesting the world and universe is, how scientists look and think about things, and once hooked, then they can play, dream and tinker all they want - using the process of science. The IT helps to spread the word wider and faster.

I agree with your observation: Science implementation is, indeed, implementation of a process with time and $ implications. However, this is not my key message.

What I see in the IT juggernaut is the pent up latent demand that exists in ordinary people (with skills nowhere close to what a scientist has, uses and needs) to better their own lot. Science will give them the knowledge (definitely the "what" and not necessarily the "why") on how nature actually works. With this knowledge in hand, their motivation and ingenuity will bear fruit quickly. The process aspect of science implementation doesn't really play that much of a role.

Joe Fisher wrote on Apr. 28, 2014 @ 15:28 GMT

Dear Mr. Bhatla,

I thought that your essay was very well written, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I only have one minor quibble with it that I do hope you do not mind me mentioning.

Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity is incorrect. Einstein’s assertion that e=mc² is incorrect. Light is the only stationary substance in the real...

I thought that your essay was very well written, and I do hope that it does well in the competition. I only have one minor quibble with it that I do hope you do not mind me mentioning.

Einstein’s general and special theory of relativity is incorrect. Einstein’s assertion that e=mc² is incorrect. Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe.

INERT LIGHT THEORY

Based on my observation, I have concluded that all of the stars, all of the planets, all of the asteroids, all of the comets, all of the meteors, all of the specks of astral dust and all real things have one and only one thing in common. Each real thing has a material surface and an attached material sub-surface. A surface can be interior or exterior. All material surfaces must travel at a constant speed. All material sub-surfaces must travel at an inconsistent speed that has to be less than the constant speed the surface travels at. While a surface can travel in any direction, a sub-surface can only travel either inwardly or outwardly. A sub-surface can expand or contract. Surfaces and sub-surfaces can be exchanged by the application of natural or fabricated force. The surfaces of the sub-sub-microscopic can never be altered. This is why matter cannot be destroyed. This is why anti-matter can never be created. It would be physically impossible for light to move as it does not have a surface or a sub-surface. Abstract theory cannot ever have unification. Only reality is unified because there is only one reality.

Light is the only stationary substance in the real Universe. The proof of this is easy to establish. When one looks at an active electrical light, one must notice that all of the light remains inside of the bulb. What does move from the bulb is some form of radiant. The radiant must move at an inconsistant rate of speed that is less than the “speed” of light, however, when the radiant strikes a surface it achieves the “speed” of light because all surfaces can only travel at the constant “speed” of light. When a light radiant strikes a surface, the radiant resumes being a light, albeit of a lesser magnitude. While it is true that searchlights, spotlights and car headlights seem to cast a beam of light, this might be because the beams strike naturally formed mingled sub-sub and sub-atomic particles prevalent in the atmosphere that collectively, actually form a surface.

In the Thomas Young Double Slit Experiment, it was not direct sunlight that passed through the slits. Light from the sun is stationary and it cannot move because light does not have a surface. Radiants emitted from the sun went through the slits and behaved like wave radiants.

Einstein was completely wrong. His abstract theory about how abstract observers “see” abstract events differently is wrong. This is what every real observer sees when they look at a real light. They see that all of the light remains near the source. The reason for that is because light does not have a surface, therefore it cannot move. This happens to real observers whether they are looking at real fabricated lights such as neon, incandescent or LED. This also happens when real observers observe real natural light such as from the real sun or reflected from the real moon, or from a real lightning bolt, or from a real fire, a real candle, or light from out of a real lightning bug’s bottom.

Thank you for your kind comment on my essay. I am glad you enjoyed reading it.

I am still trying to digest your comment on Einstein's thinking, but here's where I am coming from:

- A long time ago, I remember concluding that "science" is always a work in progress and will, literally, never end. So, yes, Einstein is only one of the latest minds to reveal a set of ideas on what we know about 'why nature works the way it does.' Eventually, Einstein will be proven wrong completely or his thinking will be tweaked in some way for us to know more about nature.

- With science always being a "work in progress" the effort is, thus, to reduce "ignorance" in humans of some kind about nature. Your model, if I may call it that, of "materials and surfaces" is also worth considering. Some of the questions I am struggling with on your model are: Isn't light a form of energy? Doesn't all mass have a surface? What if light ends up having a surface? How do your comments accept the existence of the Higgs-Boson (god's particle), Was the Big Bang only about light?... ... and, most importantly, what does your model mean for humanity's future?

I look forward to reading your essay and, hopefully, it will further inform me about your thinking. Thank you for attracting my attention.

I have seen anonymous posts on other essays. Anyone know why this happens?

Thanks.

Vladimir Rogozhin wrote on Apr. 29, 2014 @ 10:03 GMT

Dear Ajay,

I read your essay with great interest. I fully agree with you that we need new paradigms of science as a social phenomenon and a new paradigm in the philosophical foundations of science. Need "open science" for the benefit of a more sustainable future of Humanity. Information for this era opens new promising prospects. Let's hope and work together!

Great essay! I agree with you; science is our guide to a better future. But for that to happen, all people should believe in science, and what better way to get the public engaged with science than through play? In your essay, you provided some interesting ideas to achieve that goal.

In my interactions with fellow scientists and ordinary people, the task to convince anyone else to "believe in science" or "believe in anything" boils down to just one fact: What does that person's life experience tells him/her vs. what science tells him/her? Life experience will always win. When a life experience says something quite different from what science says, most people do not believe science. Also, it is not that scientists believe all science, scientists believe only that science that has believable scientists behind it. When there is no life experience at all, people can and do believe whatever they like.

I chose 'play' and 'tinkering' because everyone enjoys both and finds time in their busy schedule for both play and tinkering. Once time is being spent in play to experience something, then that something gathers belief. That's how I plan to get large numbers of people solving some very difficult problems!

I really enjoyed your essay. What a great idea to give everyone the opportunity to play with science.I have not come across the Lego for building robots but I'm sure my kids would have loved it.I expect it is expensive though. Have you come across this marvelous TED talk which shows rural indian children teaching themselves, English and science using a computer in a wall. It demonstrates how little is needed to make huge differences in people's lives.Build a school in the cloud

Imagine every individual surrounded by a sphere where all signals from everywhere are coming in and hit the surface simultaneously. In our causal existence where each location of an individual has a different location on the grid, so each sphere is different from the other. This means that each causal consciousness is receiving different data for his senses, so is from the beginning on creating what we call "individuality" being different from the other...

The original source of any (causal)consciousness is its non causal part in Total Simultaneity. So perhaps there we are ALL "ONE" (GOD?).

The causal part of this ALL Consciousness is imprisoned in what we are calling TIME, where different eternal now moments are lined up to "memory". This implicates "differences" that can be seen as good or bad, just because of the fact that they are different. This duality in our causal life with birth and death is so a result of the causal consciousness being trapped in time.

Your "individuality" point makes perfect sense to me. It is both a barrier and a door to steering the future!

- Ajay

James Lee Hoover wrote on May. 5, 2014 @ 05:11 GMT

Ajay,

I salute your optimism. Perhaps America's culture, unless you are among the top 1%, doesn't lend one such optimism. We see a corporate force with control issues and greed I did not see in my childhood. Many problems you correctly identify as local and science with universal laws certainly defies culture in solution but not necessarily in the cooperative effort needed.

The power of the people of course is a force that needs to be marshalled and in large numbers and a determined effort, it cannot be deterred. On the other side of the coin are those dependent on tyrannical forces for their livelihood.

My optimism comes from the forces that the IT juggernaut has released in the past two decades. It has empowered unknown people to deliver some amazing things - amazing, although some question whether for good or bad.

How can we release more of this force is the question I have struggled with for a decade. Thus, my position on science.

Thanks,

- Ajay

James Lee Hoover replied on May. 26, 2014 @ 22:26 GMT

Ajay,

Time grows short, so I am revisited those I've read. I find that I rated yours on 5/13. Hope you enjoyed mine.

I've pasted these reflection on you essay from the comments section of my own:

I liked your essay a lot. I am a big supporter of citizen science. I don't think you mentioned crowd sourcing efforts such as FOLDING AT HOME or even better, in that they better involve individuals crowd sourcing efforts that have individuals scan through astronomical data and the like. I feel that given mobile technology the horizon of citizen science is endless > everything from monitoring and pooling data on local ecosystems to allowing people in the developing world to tap into the scientific knowledge of more technologically developed countries. Mobile could even be used to bring highly localized knowledge in the developing world e.g. medicinal plants, new species, ecosystem health with scientist all over the world.

All the best on your noble effort to bring science to the global public.

Thank you for being a big supporter of science in the hands of consumers.

I did not mention crowd sourcing as its objective is to put a challenge to a crowd and choose a solution from the many the crowd puts forward.

My approach is very different from crowd sourcing. I believe that no sourcing is required for the goal is not for a crowd to help me with my challenge, but the goal is to get each citizen able to solve their own individual challenge.

I concur on your assessment that mobile technology is too important to ignore and its single biggest benefit will be to get knowledge to, literally, everyone to choose and use.

I'll post this comment on your essay also.

- Ajay

Michael Allan wrote on May. 11, 2014 @ 07:27 GMT

Hi Ajay, You've good intentions, but I fear you won't convince people to change. At first I thought you were trying to convince scientists. You spoke of the "select few" who alone understand nature (p.4), who "need to make public" their secrets (p. 6) and give others "access to knowledge hidden in the closet called science" (p. 7). But I think that's just your manner of speaking; you know that science (like the humanities and other scholarship) is already public, already part of the public sphere and therefore accessible to any educated person who chooses to participate. Leaving aside the key of education (you don't focus on that), you must be trying to convince people to choose to spend more of their time participating in science. Is that right?

I fear you won't succeed at that. Most folks are already doing what interests them and usually it's not close to science. - Mike

I am not trying to change anything other than get scientists and others to communicate what they know in science in ways that ordinary humans can access the knowledge and play, tinker and dream with the knowledge. This is what IT did and see what all dedicated people came up with: some of which we admire, some of which we hate and some we are indifferent to.

Most folks need more resources and I want the knowledge we hold in the science closet to be available to them for their using.

- Ajay

Michael Allan replied on May. 13, 2014 @ 06:56 GMT

Thanks Ajay, I understand. We should convince the would-be providers (scientists and others) to make science-play generally available instead of just science-work. But (to explain my point) we'd also have to convince the players to participate. Take me for instance. My interest in nature is above average; I've a degree in science, I occaisonally read books about nature, follow the wanderings of the Mars rover, and so forth. Nevertheless I'm not attracted to the hands-on investigation of how nature works (conducting experiments and interpreting results), which is science. My interests lie elsewhere. And I think the same is true for most people. They're much more interested in other activities (drawn from a wide variety of possibilities) than in doing science. So the science players (like the workers) would always be relatively few in number, nowhere near the general public. They wouldn't be like internet users, for example. The internet is a general tool for a common activity, but science is not; science is a specialized tool for an uncommon activity. You hope to make it more common - and undoubtedly there's some scope for that, I don't mean to suggest there's none - but I think it's relatively small. It'll never be "for anyone and everyone". This is my point. - Mike

I daresay that what you are calling for is something that must be done. But I would also have to say that you only begin to articulate how to share the wealth of Science with a broader public. I envision a whole lot of Science centers and Museums where adults can play and experiment, in a safe environment, as a possible step in the direction you seek. IT can carry us only so far, as there needs to be a tangible connection as well. I have a lot more to say, because I think your reasoning is sound but incomplete.

You could have been much more explicit about how the internet has greatly increased the availability of information that could previously only be found in prestigious College libraries, to make it available to anyone. You could also have talked a little more about how playing can foster innovation, but the basic idea of your essay is sound. I would not limit the purview of your premise to the young, however. I think there are a lot of older people who have the Science bug, and would love to play with Science.

The ideas in this essay are definitely a step in the right direction, so I have elevated your ranking somewhat.

Thank you for your kind comments and ranking me up, but someone else seems to have ramped me down. I guess that's the way it goes. I do wonder what the rankings would be if we could not see the composite value.

You are quite right in that I could have talked at length about the Internet and made the case more completely. Points well made and taken with thanks. Not an excuse, but a friend told me about FQXi on Wednesday and I wrote the essay overnight on Thursday to get it in on Friday.

Ajay

Member Daniel Dewey wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 16:08 GMT

Hi Ajay,

It does seem that giving as many people as possible the ability to improve their lives through exploration of science and engineering would have many good effects.

I'd be interested to hear how you'd want to trade these benefits off against the potential harms, though. For example, widespread knowledge of contagious diseases and genetic engineering could be quite dangerous; it would only take one mistake by a curious experimenter to kill many people. Do you have ideas about how to address this kind of risk? How could we calculate whether or not to distribute certain types of knowledge?

Because of the risks of future technologies, I tend to think that there may be types of scientific or engineering knowledge that should not be spread freely, at least until we have figured out how to protect against their harms. What do you think?

We may have a philosophical difference, but I'm sure you can postulate so many risks that few actions will ever get off the ground. Isn't your question the current issue for decision makers to get past and get moving on global warming?

If prior justification was required, could Google Search ever become real?

The same answer applies to any research arena or researcher, including you and I, and any of your work or mine.

I look forward to reading your essay later this week.

- Ajay

Tommy Anderberg wrote on May. 12, 2014 @ 20:44 GMT

Thanks for the heads up. Another essay which I seem to have missed completely... :/

A doubt crept up as I was reading yours: do you really mean science, or do you mean technology?

Your leading example, Information Technology, suggests it's the latter. The IT explosion (which I would claim started in earnest in the late 70s, making it closer to 40 now) was about a technology which...

Thanks for the heads up. Another essay which I seem to have missed completely... :/

A doubt crept up as I was reading yours: do you really mean science, or do you mean technology?

Your leading example, Information Technology, suggests it's the latter. The IT explosion (which I would claim started in earnest in the late 70s, making it closer to 40 now) was about a technology which became cheap enough for individuals to afford (in industrialized countries at least), simple enough for a large section of the population to master, and (for some) fun enough to motivate the effort. There are millions of self-taught hackers now, but if there has been a commensurate growth on the "sciency" side of computing (theory of computation, information theory, complexity and all that), I have completely missed it.

Assuming that you really are after broadening access to other technologies, I guess the obvious lessons from IT is that they must be

- Cheap

- Easy

- Fun

for widespread adoption to happen. And they had better be applicable to real problems for that adoption to be desirable.

In both cases, IT continues to play a crucial supporting role by enabling information dissemination, community building and crowd founding in ways which would not have been possible even two decades ago. At risk of sounding like a broken record, I think virtual reality could also become important for this kind of thing by allowing rapid concept development and simulated prototype testing in cases where the real thing would be prohibitively costly or risky to build.

Science is essentially the knowledge of consequences i.e. Science answers the question: What is the cause of this result? To answer this question, a description of the environment, within which the consequence occurs, is necessary because the same result can be reached with different cause-environment combinations.

Technology, on the other hand, is our attempt at controlling the environment so that a particular action (cause) leads only to one or a very few restricted list of results. This is what IT did very well.

So, two points for you to consider:

1. As circumstances are different all over the world for the same situation (water shortages do not occur with the same local circumstances in place) it is the local person who needs to make real the technology applicable locally.

2. For the local person to make real the specific technology needed locally, all the science must be available to him/her to choose from and adapt.

Looking forward to your reaction.

Ajay

Tommy Anderberg replied on May. 14, 2014 @ 19:59 GMT

I like the definition of science handily provided by Wikipedia: "a systematic enterprise that builds and organizes knowledge in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the universe". Going by this (consensus, I think) definition, to do science is to discover and organize knowledge.

My impression is that you are more interested in "the making, modification, usage, and knowledge of tools, machines, techniques, crafts, systems, and methods of organization, in order to solve a problem, improve a pre-existing solution to a problem, achieve a goal, handle an applied input/output relation or perform a specific function" (technology).

This is not just nitpicking (I hope), because making the latter widely available, especially in the cheap, easy and fun way needed to achieve broad uptake, is a lot easier than the former. Technology can be standardized and packaged. You can have a set of mass-produced (hence cheap) tools and well-defined (hence teachable) procedures to perform commonly occurring tasks, and let everybody combine them as they see fit to achieve their own, more complicated goals. If you hit the right compromise between granularity and abstraction, you get something like IT. I can pick a bunch of components from a catalogue and assemble a PC without having to brush up on electronics (or trying to design my own microprocessor), or use the high level abstractions of a computer language and supporting libraries to create a program to perform a calculation without having to worry about every detail of the implementation. In both cases, I am using standardized building blocks which hide a lot of the complexity from me, making the process easy and even fun.

To do science is pretty much the opposite. It's about digging deeper, past the convenient layers of abstraction, and looking for loose threads to follow even deeper down the rabbit hole. If you already know what you're going to find, you're probably not doing science. I offer as a corollary that if you're trying to solve a pressing practical problem, you probably don't want to be doing science. What you want is access to a set of cheap, standardized building blocks which can be combined to achieve the desired result.

So that's what needed: a set of convenient building blocks, versatile enough to produce virtually unlimited combinations, yet simple enough to be usable by many people.

I second Tommy. The scope for participation in technology is greater than in science (I still maintain it's not "for anyone and everyone", but more so than science). And there's more practical utility in terms of direct benefit from the product, which I think is what Ajay is driving at. - Mike

The definition of 'science' you quote from Wikipedia is simply wrong for it presumes (a) science knowledge predicts the future and (b) that it is an enterprise. The part of being "testable" is somewhat right.

"Science" is the knowledge of consequences. Consequences talk about finding the root cause of a result i.e. the result B was caused by action A.

This B-A relationship is not saying that A-B is also true. B-A is NOT a predictor of A-B because there are too many factors that are necessary to be in place before B-A is true. Without this long list of factors A-B is not realized and science says so very clearly.

The implication you seem to give when you talk about products and technology is also incorrect and NOT applicable to the knowledge called science. Products have a defined result e.g. I press the computer key with the label "D" on it and a "d" appears on the screen. Everything else the key can do is restricted. Thus, products don't allow themselves to do anything other than the restrictions technology places on these products.

The few minds that figure out how to make 'pressing the D key' produce a smiley face on the screen is the creative result that only knowledge at the "science" level can produce in those hands whose minds are challenged for reasons unknown to the rest of us.

I read your essay and I found it interesting and well-written, and it is quite good-intended.

I think that what you envision would already be the outcome of a much more advanced civilization, in which every single individual would enjoy a high educational level to the point of being competent in science at some level, or at the level of his/her choice, being completely free to pursue his/her own research according to necessity or just fun, if he/she desires at all, with resources readily available for him/her for an open practice.

I am not sure of what it necessary for we as a species to evolve to that point, although you have proposed some ideas. Something to think about. I think the process is somewhat more involved, though.

Very good essay, which deserves a better rating (I have rated it, for your information).

But the idea, I believe, we both share is not too difficult for open minds to grasp: Get more minds involved in ways that we let them freely contribute. The future is mostly what we can imagine, and I being an eternal optimist, hope and see a wonderful future for every human and living thing.

Good luck to you too!

-- Ajay

Israel Perez wrote on May. 13, 2014 @ 23:45 GMT

Dear Ajay

Just to let you know that I just read your essay. It is well-written and organized. Although, I think that perhaps you need to be more specific in your objective. It is not clear how you pretend to achieve your goal of letting people play with science. Do you have a program in mind? I also have some doubts regarding some parts of your essay. I would be glad if you could make some comments.

You say: During the recent four decade period, however, after the sciences underpinning digital information technology (IT) were placed in the hands of non-scientists,

Who are you referring to? Who are those non-scientists you claim made exponential progress?

You also say: Scientists must individually put their science within reach of the global public in a form novices can use as they see fit.

I agree that science is another human activity like any other, but, in my view, science must be done by experts and science should be in the hands of scientists only, because they are the experts. The knowledge science generates is shared for free from many institutions. This is how the public get access to science. However, one must be aware that not all knowledge can be shared. One should be careful with knowledge because in the wrong hands it may cause damage. For instance, nuclear physics.

Those who would like to generate knowledge are welcomed to do research following the protocols and guidelines of science. Those who wish to know, scientific knowledge is for free in many institutions and websites. The public nowadays have open access to knowledge.

Thanks for your comments and questions on mine. I responded there as below. From your abstract I'll enjoy reading yours.

.

"Message 1) is that understanding must be improved to progress. Message 2) is that a new 'non Earth-centric' way to think is needed to achieve that progress, and it's possible now. I tried to show 2 in a more subliminal way, showing the hidden importance of there being "no UP in space" and the power of that next 'Copernican' step away from how we use our on-board quantum computers.

The demonstration of that is the entirely classical reproduction of 'QM correlations', circumventing Bell's theorem. It uses 'joined-up-physics' by applying various important elements (i.e. electron 'spin flip') to expose a coherent geometrical solution to the EPR paradox. No spookyness or FTL nonsense required.

It's a fundamental breakthrough because the same mechanism also applies to SR (light speed changes to local c on arrival and interaction not before!) which allows complete harmonious unification of SR and QM, in 'absolute' time, but with Doppler shiftable 'signals' once emitted (see my prev essays from '2020 Vision in 2011). For that reason it'll probably never be countenanced by any who can't think beyond current doctrine. Unfortunately that seems to be very few so far. I think you caught a first glimpse, far clearer than the established language? A 2nd read often seems necessary."

Great essay. Shocking stuff to 'professional scientists' but a nice attempt at making the point that nature and our planet are the domains of all mankind. I suspect almost all will scream with fear and not understand, as Israel's comment above, but they may invoke the public playing with nuclear weapons so only succeed in entirely missing the point. All those without PhD's are seen as...

Great essay. Shocking stuff to 'professional scientists' but a nice attempt at making the point that nature and our planet are the domains of all mankind. I suspect almost all will scream with fear and not understand, as Israel's comment above, but they may invoke the public playing with nuclear weapons so only succeed in entirely missing the point. All those without PhD's are seen as crackpots to be ignored and excluded.

There's an answer to Israel's question. It is that MOST breakthroughs are made from those NOT part of the 'expert' community at the time. You should compile a list. One of my favourites is Heaviside. Typically even though lauded his real contribution was far greater that n the 'experts' wanted to admit. It was he who wrote the so called 'Maxwell' equations!

I am 100% behind your point. Science should not have 'coded' languages to create mystique, cliques and clubs away from prying eyes. The arXiv some years ago demanded plain language. that lasted 5 minutes, now their editors are worse than the worse journals for censorship. The rot grows from within. I smelt it early and stepped back, also then training as an Architect. Architects take the opposite, inclusive, view; "All men are Architects". I am an enabler, using my skills to implement and open the mind to show what's possible and make it happen. Science desperately needs such an ethos but rejects the slightest hint.

My essay shows what's possible with that view. But so did my previous ones, the last 3 in the top 10 and last years 2nd, all completely ignored by the 'expert' physicist judges who keep theory in it's cosy complex rut. Unification of physics is hiding right before our eyes. My young nephew and local barmaid and associates understand it well and call professional scientists 'utter dorks' for clinging on the incoherent and illogical tripe. With a foot in both camps I argue both sides, but it's becoming ever clearer to the public that the king really is rather naked. The longer it takes to escape the rut the more painful it will be.

I hope you understood the shockingly simple dynamics of my hypothesis, I've also explained it in a nutshell in blog comments, but do just ask. Very well and bravely done with yours. I have just one small quibble, that you accept Newton and Einstein too easily without question. We must remember; "All science is provisional", and I find all needs at least some re-interpretation. I shall try your antigravity button (do try mine!) Very best of luck in the contest.

I agree that I should say it as clearly as possible that "all science is provisional." Thanks for the 100% backing.

The very best in the competition.

-- Ajay

Arthur R. Woods wrote on May. 14, 2014 @ 12:41 GMT

Dear Ajay

I enjoyed your essay and especially its optimistic message about having science becoming more accessible to the general public as a strategy for steering the future.

As other readers have pointed out, the Internet and the general availability of information technologies have surely furthered - and will continue to further - your goal in this endeavor.

From my experience as an artist working with art-in-space projects, in order to be taken seriously by the space agency administrators, engineers and scientists, I soon realized it was necessary to learn the "languages" of these disciplines while sharing the my artistic "language" with them. Thus, I had to become competent in various areas of space technology including science and engineering in order to realize my space art projects. Once a credible goal was articulated and understanding from both sides was established, mutual synergy occurred and things happened.

Today, there are a number of artists-in-labs projects located around the world that are enabling and encouraging this kind of multi-disciplinary interchange.

The internet also made me aware of the volume of positive outcomes possible with more sharing without requiring any kind of pre-qualification of recipients.

Your point on "languages" is 100% correct. The internet surfaced one solution for communication issues: If enough individuals have access to the same knowledge then a few self-selecting people will figure out (through play and tinkering) how to use the knowledge.

The "ail" reference you shared is very significant to my work. Thank you.

The very best.

-- Ajay

Gbenga Michael Ogungbuyi wrote on May. 15, 2014 @ 21:30 GMT

Dear Ajay,

Thanks for your great comments on my thread. I will surely read your essay and respond. There is power-cut in my location and will do that later.

Thanks for this inspiring essay, Ajay! Indeed, to parody a famous American gun-lobbying organization, "If science is outlawed, only scientists will have science."

I agree 100% that the world would be exponentially enriched if all were citizen scientists. There is one caution; you say:

"Scientists don't really need to make public why a result-cause relationship exists and why, in certain circumstances, it doesn't."

The one circumstance to which cause-effect cannot in principle be determined is the case of a positive, self-reinforcing feedback loop. I think this is where many fear the "mad scientist" effect of an out of control catastrophe -- citizen science is a guarantee, however, that sane scientists will far outnumber mad scientists.

I finally got to read your essay, and now I am even more convinced of what I replied to your comments to my article: we share many of our goals (e.g., maximizing every individual's access to scientific information, including the means to educate themselves to the point where they can properly understand it), but we start with slightly different motivations. Furthermore, as a "professional scientist" I take your encouragement to communicate our science (and the thrill to play with it) to the public very seriously. I know it's important, but sometimes it helps to be reminded. Good luck!

Glad you take my essay as encouragement! That's exactly why I wrote it.

Would appreciate any comments on that what restricts your sharing. Thank you.

The very best of luck to you too.

-- Ajay

Edwin Eugene Klingman wrote on May. 18, 2014 @ 22:51 GMT

Dear Ajay,

I enjoyed your fascinating essay, with its interesting anecdotes to support your themes. You make an excellent point about the computer revolution "putting science in the hands of the public." I do agree with you that 'future' is about making life better at the individual level with "better" defined by the individual. Maximum freedom!

I also liked your points about gravity being known for 200,000 years or so before Newton, beginning with babies first steps.

I have one son who has largely avoided computers for a long time but is now hooked on both iPads and 3-D printers. I think that supports your points.

Thank you for your kind comments. I'm glad to learn that we are on the same page.

Your son's experience with the iPad and 3D printing is exactly what I am talking about. He now has the sciences (a bit constrained, I know) that are the underpinning of these two devices in his hands. As he plays with them, he will, I believe, use them as arrows in his quiver to 'fix' what he finds unsatisfactory or worth doing. I'm also sure he will find a way to 'break' the constraints and use the sciences to accomplish with these devices a few things, nobody anticipates him doing - that's the real beauty of the App World and that's the real beauty of putting sciences in the hands of the global public. Thank you for sharing your son's story.

-- Ajay

Member Marc Séguin wrote on May. 21, 2014 @ 07:07 GMT

Ajay,

I have responded to your comments on my essay in my forum. As I said there, I think our approaches are quite complementary!

Yours is a beautifully written essay, whose message I would like to interpret, at least partly, as a global inculcation of a scientific of a scientific temper, in all that we do. I feel this should be accompanied by a global inculcation of a `moral temper’ and a compassion based value system, which firmly educates us as to what is a benign way to interact with other human beings.

You make a very good point. I agree that your emphasis and mine together make a very strong story. I'll give it some thought as to how to make the combination happen - do you have any ideas?

How can you and I communicate outside this forum and especially after May 30, when I presume these communications will end?

-- Ajay

Robert de Neufville wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 02:18 GMT

I completely agree we need to encourage everyone to experiment with science, Ajay. Things like 3D printers promise to be wonderful tools for this. I also think that as people move out poverty around the world they will have more time and resources to devote to exploring and innovating. I am not sure that encouraging play will by itself have the transformative effect you hope, but I certainly agree that it's a good idea.

I think you and I may be saying the very same thing, except you say "experiment" when I say "play". In my mind, experiment is a more technical word, a word not used in normal talking by the general public - the public's preferred word is 'play'.

The best of luck to you in the contest!

-- Ajay

Brent Pfister wrote on May. 22, 2014 @ 21:56 GMT

Ajay, very enjoyable essay to read. I like "Steering, the act that makes real a desired outcome, is the many millions of separate, individually initiated actions that move the ship of humanity to a better place."

I like the way your essay focuses on people in less developed regions using science to improve their lives. After a natural disaster, this is potentially anywhere, when there is no one to call for help. I will add a score to your essay soon. Thank you for writing your essay!

I agree with your conclusion that "Humanity can succeed at this by steering the global public to play, dream and tinker with science." On your comment on "collective will" here means that we collectively as individuals are working together to achieve Xuan Yuan's Da Tong. For example, Ajay is one person but he is made of about 75 trillions of cells that are working collectively as one Ajay.

I think you are right that everybody should be concerned with science, play with it, understand it, put it at work for mankind. I enjoyed very much reading your well written and well thought essay, and I liked the ending paragraph:

"Science in the hands of hoards of unknowns inspired for their own personal reasons to make a difference in their world and motivated to realize the difference urgently, is the tsunami humanity direly needs to unleash. Humanity can succeed at this by steering the global public to play, dream and tinker with science."

I have read your essay. I found it interesting, scientific and publishable in all ramifications. Your quote of insanity from Albert Einstein words was really absorbing.

I have actually rated you higher to maintain your leadership. I am wishing you a great deal of reward for your effort, energy and time. I was about saying "Make your book available for interested members of the forum" when I saw some excerpt from the book.

Thank you for your entry, Ajay. I appreciated your many points of reference from cultures all around the world and history!

How do you envision governments or other organizations could encourage scientists to make their work more accessible/play-with-able to more people? Or would there be more of a 'pull' strategy, where the public is more encouraged to do this playing? What are more ways that we can make this happen?

[I thought I had already commented but couldn't find it, sorry for chiming in so late):

Ajay, I agree with you and several other writers (for example, Philip Gibbs) that more amateur and "public" input is needed to generate useful ideas to help us survive. There is another reason to crowd-source ideas: the public is more likely to support measures they helped to form. Also, at the other, individualist end of the scale, seeking out talented amateurs ensures that bright people's concepts are not rejected for reasons of academic caste. (One is reminded of how societies advance when women are allowed to fully participate along with men.) Best wishes for such efforts to expand and bring wider participation.

I like the optimism of your entry. Trying to encourage more people to be educated certainly is a worthy goal, and one I am interested in being involved with myself.

Like others, I find myself wondering: how do you propose to get more people to "play with science"? Do you really think that just making the information accessible and available is enough?

Many people in developed countries have access, but no interest; many people in developing countries have interest, but no access. Many people graduating from universities with science degrees don't end up working in science for interest or financial reasons. I think there may be some economic challenges to overcome before it is financially possible for the general public to study and play with science.

To get to the point where more and more people can play with science, we can follow two tracks, at least:

- have what science knows, available to be found very easily, and

- have people understand that the knowledge in science is knowledge on the natural world around them.

Both if the above address a big issue with science: the intimidation issue holding science use back : science is something I, an ordinary person, cannot hope to understand or use. That's the idea behind my discourse on gravity.,

On interest: the task is to make it easy for the driven, the motivated, the optimistic to not be held back.

Best on your essay,

- Ajay

Lorraine Ford wrote on Jun. 6, 2014 @ 05:16 GMT

I'm sorry Ajay,

But it is just fantasy to envisage "7 billion people passionately driven and playing with science", and just fantasy to conjecture "What might these billions make true when they have access to knowledge hidden in the closet called science".

Most people would run a mile rather than have anything to do with detailed scientific knowledge - they just don't have that type of temperament. Also most people need to spend a great deal of their time earning enough money to live, and the rest of the time they need to spend with their family. Not many people have enough time, money, energy, interest or ability to tinker with science and work on solving "humanity's most vexing and intransigent problems". Those that ARE interested, and have the time, money, energy, and ability are probably doing it already. And let's face it: many trained scientists can't even get work.

You say "Imagine what remedies can result from 7 billion people passionately driven and playing with science!" But is it really OK for the "Global Public" to "play" with nuclear materials, potentially poisonous substances, genetic engineering and nanotechnology? I don't think so. Science is NOT "just life by another name".